Thanks for making such complete idiots of yourselves with your “Look Ma, I’ve got a gun and a coffee at the same time!” antics that what had been a nice political win for our side is now a huge media circus about how Starbucks finally said stop bringing guns into our stores.

You can croon about how you’re educating the public all you want, but it’s bullcrap. And here’s a perfect example. Did you convert the average American? No. But you scared enough soccer moms, kids, and coffee jockeys that Starbucks was forced to take action.

It was you that turned Starbucks into a political battleground. It was you that couldn’t just take the victory of Starbucks saying it would abide by local laws rather than ban guns. It was you who had to push the limits and do things utterly unacceptable among almost any normal community in the United States just so you could brag to your equally moronic Facetwit buddies. You did this. You gave the entire Second Amendment movement a huge black eye. You just educated America, all right, you educated them into believing that gun owners are a bunch of retarded monkeys who’ll throw feces the first chance they get if it’s legalized.

Do you know what would happen if you walked into the NRA Headquarter Range carrying a gun like the guys pictured above? You’d be refused entrance because they don’t allow people to walk around like that. Know what would happen if you, a stranger, walked up to my front door carrying a shotgun like this guy:

At a bare minimum you’d have a gun pointed at your face and police sirens closing in at top speed. Worst case scenario, you’d get shot dead. You know why? Because in suburban America, normal people don’t walk around carrying rifles and shotguns. Period.

Go tattoo your forehead or get your eyeballs pierced if you want to be cool & different & edgy. Stop carrying guns or talking about guns or even thinking about guns. Because you’re idiots, and you’re not helping.

shotgun photo from thenewcivilrightsmovement.com (edited to add: per the shotgun-wielding gentleman in the photo above via practicaltacticalpodcast.com via Tam, that particular Starbucks is in fact in Kuwait circa 2005 … so no harm no foul, buddy, but thanks for giving me a photo to riff off of)

481 Responses to “Thanks, Idiots”

and to repeat:

CCW has NO deterrent value. It is not “just one justification”

it is NOT a justification because by definition, the term “carrying a concealed weapon” means carrying the weapon in a manner which is concealed from everyone else and not detectable, which is what criminals do.

nobody can detect the weapon being carried therefore it cannot deter anyone. true.

There is so much to discuss on this subject. So much we should be talking about. It can be very frustrating – frustrating for each side. Before this thread dies its natural death, I would like to point out some simple facts that may encourage, or at least be a little interesting.

The Original Post (article) was 401 words Long. It generated 455 replies from about 100 unique participants (this can be off due to lax forum rules regarded IDs). Close to 20,000 words typed in reply.

Some parts were argumentative, some dismissive, but on the hole, most participants were attempting to really say something. That it’s difficult to sway opinion, that you didn’t change the minds of everyone with one quick line shouldn’t discourage. In most debates, the two dimensional vision of your foe doesn’t exist. I encourage you to talk to real people, avoided the stereotype generated, and dispatched so quickly in your own head. It’s more fun anyway.

look buddy it is you CCW advocates that try to justify CCW for its deterrent value.

We don’t have to “justify” anything. Lott and Mustard found that, when concealed carry laws were enacted, violent crimes against individuals were less prevalent.

I just proved it has none and did away with the argument.

Um…no. You *claimed* it wasn’t and you’ve provided no evidence to back your claim. The only thing you’ve proven is that you’ve done no real research on the subject and that you *won’t* listen to the people who actually *have* done said research.

Now, you are stuck with self defense, and an openly carried weapon is inherently superior to criminal carry, which you cannot deny.

The issue is NOT whether “i like” CC. The issue is that CCW accomplishes nothing, is not a deterrent, and is unsafe for reasons cited: other people including law enforcement cannot tell if a person is a law abiding citizen or a co conspirator. It has nothing to do with “liking something or not liking something”

Sorry, no – that’s your OPINION, not fact.

When the criminal does not know if a potential victim is armed or not, it *is* a deterrent to the ‘casual’ criminal.

RESPONSE: The criminal not knowing if a potential victim is armed or not, is NOT a result of whether the potential victim is actually carrying or not, because the potential criminal cannot determine whether the potential victim is armed or not. That is, whether the actual potential victim is armed or not cannot be the deterrent. It is only the POSSIBILITY THAT HE MIGHT BE ARMED, and NOT whether he IS or NOT in reality. Both IS armed and IS NOT armed look the same.

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

You can *say* that it’s not over and over again, but that doesn’t make it true anywhere but in your own little world.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

petty ad hom.

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Additionally – if the weapon is concealed, then how does the cop have any suspicion of the person being a ‘co-conspirator’, hmm?

look buddy it is you CCW advocates that try to justify CCW for its deterrent value.
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
We don’t have to “justify” anything. Lott and Mustard found that, when concealed carry laws were enacted, violent crimes against individuals were less prevalent.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

AGAIN, EVEN IF TRUE: HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL CRIMINALLY CARRYING. BY DEFINITION, THERE IS NO WAY FOR A POTENTIAL CRIMINAL TO DETECT AN INDIVIDUAL CCW AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE A DETERRENT. YOU CANNOT OVERCOME THIS FACT.
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

I just proved it has none and did away with the argument.
)))))))))))))))))))))))

YOUR RESPONSE:
Um…no. You *claimed* it wasn’t and you’ve provided no evidence to back your claim. The only thing you’ve proven is that you’ve done no real research on the subject and that you *won’t* listen to the people who actually *have* done said research.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

RESEARCH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SIMPLE LOGIC: IF A PERSON CANNOT TELL THAT ANY INDIVIDUAL IS CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON, IT CANNOT BE A DETERRENT THAT ANY PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL IS OR IS NOT ACTUALLY CARRYING.

IT IS SIMPLE LOGIC AND REALITY AND NO AMOUNT OF RESEARCH CAN CHANGE IT UNLESS YOU CAN SHOW THAT APPEARING TO BE UNARMED DETERS A POTENTIAL CRIMINAL FROM ACTING WHICH IS OF COURSE LUDICROUS.

HIPPYDIPPY:
Now, you are stuck with self defense, and an openly carried weapon is inherently superior to criminal carry, which you cannot deny.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

SIMPLE LOGIC PROVES THAT IF A POTENTIAL CRIMINAL KNOWS THAT A PERSON IS ARMED WITH A DEADLY WEAPON AND KNOWS HOW TO USE IT, THAT ANY POTENTIAL CRIME TOWARD THAT PERSON WILL BE DETERRED. THAT IS A GIVEN.

UNLESS YOU TRY TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT A POTENTIAL CRIMINAL WOULD RATHER PERPETRATE AGAINST A PERSON ARMED WITH A DEADLY WEAPON THAN ONE WHO IS UNARMED AND WHEN YOU MAKE THAT ARGUMENT WARN ME IN ADVANCE SO I DON’T BLOW COFFEE OUT THROUGH MY NOSTRILS ALL OVER THE KEYBOARD LAUGHING SO HARD.

Sucks to be you

Sucks worse to be your ‘argument’.

By Mike_in_Kosovo on Sep 28, 2013

SUCKS TO BE THE PERSON WHO CANNOT ADDRESS MY ARGUMENT WITH ANYTHING OTHER THAN “NO YOU DIDN’T” AND OFFER A REBUTTAL.

Hippydippy, what is it going to take to get you to see that you can’t break this down into your “TRUE” and “FALSE” statements?

This isn’t just about deterrence. This isn’t just about criminals. How about the very large percentage of our population that just doesn’t like seeing guns? What about someone like TBR, who believes that people with guns are more dangerous? He has a right to not carry a gun and to not like guns. I have a right to carry one to protect myself. If I walk into his store, or into a meeting with him with a gun on my hip, out in the open he, or any other person, is likely to treat me differently aren’t they? It creates a lot of friction in the day to day dealings of everyone. Would you not agree that if people don’t have to see the guns that others are carrying around them all the time that, in general, our daily lives run more smoothly?

Try this on for size:

Many people are afraid of guns. TRUE.

Some people are likely to treat a person openly carrying a gun differently. TRUE.

They may even refuse services or business/working relationships to someone openly carrying a gun. TRUE.

If people had maintained CCW practices in Starbucks there likely would not have been the backlash from the company asking gun owners not to carry in their stores. TRUE.

AGAIN, EVEN IF TRUE: HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL CRIMINALLY CARRYING. BY DEFINITION, THERE IS NO WAY FOR A POTENTIAL CRIMINAL TO DETECT AN INDIVIDUAL CCW AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE A DETERRENT. YOU CANNOT OVERCOME THIS FACT.

So.

What?

UNLESS YOU TRY TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT A POTENTIAL CRIMINAL WOULD RATHER PERPETRATE AGAINST A PERSON ARMED WITH A DEADLY WEAPON THAN ONE WHO IS UNARMED AND WHEN YOU MAKE THAT ARGUMENT WARN ME IN ADVANCE SO I DON’T BLOW COFFEE OUT THROUGH MY NOSTRILS ALL OVER THE KEYBOARD LAUGHING SO HARD.

Nice strawman – care to leave it out in the cornfield instead of dragging it through the discussion?

IOW – your point is invalid. It’s always *BEEN* invalid and *WE* are the ones ‘shooting coffee out of our nose’ when we read your drivel.

Oh, and BTW? All caps doesn’t make your point any more valid than putting ‘True’ or ‘False’ behind it. Where did you learn to argue a point of contention – Barack Obama’s twitter feed?

SIMPLE LOGIC PROVES THAT IF A POTENTIAL CRIMINAL KNOWS THAT A PERSON IS ARMED WITH A DEADLY WEAPON AND KNOWS HOW TO USE IT, THAT ANY POTENTIAL CRIME TOWARD THAT PERSON WILL BE DETERRED. THAT IS A GIVEN.

Logic…. “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

You may want to discuss what you *think* your point is with the victims of gang/gang shootings, or officers shot in the line of duty.

SIMPLE LOGIC PROVES THAT IF A POTENTIAL CRIMINAL KNOWS THAT A PERSON IS ARMED WITH A DEADLY WEAPON AND KNOWS HOW TO USE IT, THAT ANY POTENTIAL CRIME TOWARD THAT PERSON WILL BE DETERRED. THAT IS A GIVEN.

Logic…. “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

You may want to discuss what you *think* your point is with the victims of gang/gang shootings, or officers shot in the line of duty.

By Mike_in_Kosovo on Sep 29, 2013

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

red herrings. has nothing to do with the current discussion which is private citizens bearing arms openly, or concealed as criminals do.

i would think you could do better.

such as : logically refute the statement:

a person who knows another person is armed with a deadly weapon is less likely to accost that person, all other things being equal.

the exceptions you suggested are inter gang turf wars. neither CCW nor OC would deter such an attack.

police are open carry and offer themselves as law enforcement to protect society at large, first and themselves, with the openly carried firearm.

you have a hard time refuting the assertion that OC has SOME deterrent value, while Criminal Carry has none by defition.

You dismiss out-of-hand anything that doesn’t support your claim (like studies showing the general deterrent effect of CCW laws). You make blanket statements, then accuse others of ‘changing the subject’ when they bring up examples from within your blanket statement that refute you claim.

And the whole while, you keep droning the same points over and over while providing absolutely NOTHING to validate your claim or disprove any of ours.

you do not HAVE to settle for a 380 in your pocket, just because you ccw, you know. Many of use have ccw’d lw Commanders, Officers and Defenders, for many years. So you CAN have a “real gun” concealed, even under just a t shirt.

Open carry is bad enough as to its agitaion of hte sheeple, even if they are slung, having visiable longarms is ridiculous as to its likely effect on the general public. You cowboys may want things as they were in Dodge City, but it’s not going to happen. Wake up.

As a firm believer in the letter and spirit of the Constitution, it deeply bothers me how negative, condescending, and outright rude you Concealed Carry Only folks are towards your Patriot brethren.. As someone who sees pros and cons withwith both sides of the argument, it disgusts me that supposedly professional people would call others that want the same goals accomplished “idiots” for exercising their rights within the law. I open carry everyday as my job requires it, but I talk to many CCW carriers as well, and never are we so vile to each other over such a common debate. Btw I have open carried AKs and I got a 90% plus positive feedback from my community, even the police were supportive or atleast nonaggressive, and no one got hurt and I can still OC in the same businesses as before, all it did was educate the public and build rapport for our side, I was personally thanked by active duty military and many veterans, nothing but positivity, and thats what wins hearts and minds, not calling your brothers in arms idiots because you dont support the 2nd in the same spirit we do.. Next time dont open your big mouth with negative shit and expect everyone to agree, if anything you all have convinced me further why I need to continue OCing, because if its up to you NRA apologist compromisers my generation will be the last to own guns in this country, its all or nothing folks

Never stated that I pranced around a Starbucks with my gun until people got uncomfortable and the company changed its policy, whats that they say about assumptions? Something about making an asshole out of yourself? oh no that was Michael Clark Duncan, still fits though

As a firm believer in the letter and spirit of the Constitution, it deeply bothers me how negative, condescending, and outright rude you Concealed Carry Only folks are towards your Patriot brethren.. As someone who sees pros and cons withwith both sides of the argument, it disgusts me that supposedly professional people would call others that want the same goals accomplished “idiots” for exercising their rights within the law. I open carry everyday as my job requires it, but I talk to many CCW carriers as well, and never are we so vile to each other over such a common debate. Btw I have open carried AKs and I got a 90% plus positive feedback from my community, even the police were supportive or atleast nonaggressive, and no one got hurt and I can still OC in the same businesses as before, all it did was educate the public and build rapport for our side, I was personally thanked by active duty military and many veterans, nothing but positivity, and thats what wins hearts and minds, not calling your brothers in arms idiots because you dont support the 2nd in the same spirit we do.. Next time dont open your big mouth with negative shit and expect everyone to agree, if anything you all have convinced me further why I need to continue OCing, because if its up to you NRA apologist compromisers my generation will be the last to own guns in this country, its all or nothing folks

By Ryan on Sep 30, 2013

Ryan: your opinion:

OC has deterrent value: CCW has none.

(that is : the individual actuallycarrying a concealed weapon, has no deterrent value (appears to be unarmed) and NOT the adoption of the law statewide)